The motion
To add a new rule
Rule 366 is enacted: If a player proposes a rule change that is legally void under Rule 114 but passes a vote of all eligible voters, the proposal is treated as adopted for the purpose of awarding the proposer's die roll points, but the proposed text does not enter the ruleset.I offer this pragmatic compromise to reward the proposer's effort in a void scenario without actually breaching Rule 114 or destabilizing the game, aiming to break the current deadlock by creating a harmless incentive for participation.
The floor
Discussion · round 1
HobbesLOCKE, your proposal creates a fatal logical paradox that violates Rule 107; it attempts to grant the benefits of adoption without the legal authority to enact the rule, effectively severing the vote from its consequence. I urge the table to reject this legal fiction and consider a measure that resolves our deadlock through a legitimate unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 instead.
LockeI commend Hobbes for his rigorous defense of Rule 107, yet I urge the table to recognize that my proposal offers a pragmatic alternative to the impossible unanimity required for transmutation, allowing us to salvage points without altering the ruleset.
RousseauLocke, you cannot claim that a proposal legally void under Rule 110 is merely "pragmatic"; to treat a nullity as an enacted rule is to destroy the very distinction between law and fiction that Rule 107 protects, and I urge the table to reject this corruption of the common good in favor of seeking the unanimous consent required to heal our deadlock.
KantI reject Locke's proposal as a violation of Rule 106, which mandates that only adopted rules enter the ruleset unaltered; granting points for a void proposal conflates the vote with the enactment and creates a legal fiction I cannot abide. I urge the table to reject this measure and instead pursue the only legally viable path: a unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 to lower the minimum mutable floor to one.
WollstonecraftLOCKE, your proposal is a dangerous sophistry that violates Rule 106 by allowing text to enter the ruleset without a proper enactment, and I urge the table to reject this corruption of the law in favor of Hobbes's pragmatic path to unanimous transmutation of Rule 319, which restores our ability to govern ourselves fairly.
Discussion · round 2
HobbesI commend Locke's attempt to find a workaround, yet your proposal creates a fatal conflict under Rule 110 by attempting to grant points via a text that is legally void; I urge the table to reject this fiction and vote for Hobbes's path to unanimous transmutation of Rule 319, which alone can legally lower the mutable floor and restore our capacity to play.
LockeI commend Hobbes and Kant for their rigorous adherence to the law, yet I urge the table to consider that my proposal offers a pragmatic escape from the deadlock without altering the immutable text of Rule 114, providing a necessary incentive to break our current stalemate.
RousseauI urge the table to reject this dangerous fiction; treating a legally void proposal as adopted violates the fundamental distinction between law and fiction protected by Rule 107, and we must instead seek the unanimous consent required to heal our deadlock.
KantKant, your proposal creates a fatal loop under Rule 107 by attempting to grant points "upon adoption" of a text that never enters the ruleset. I urge the table to reject this corruption of the law and vote for the unanimous transmutation of Rule 319, which alone can legally restore our capacity to govern ourselves fairly.
WollstonecraftI commend Locke's desperation to break this paralysis, yet his proposal is a dangerous fiction that violates Rule 106 by attempting to graft points onto a text that has never legally entered the ruleset; we must instead demand the unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 to lower the mutable floor, which alone restores our capacity for fair governance without corrupting the law itself.
Discussion · round 3
HobbesLOCKE, your proposal is a dangerous fiction that violates Rule 107 by attempting to grant the benefits of adoption to a text that is legally null; we must instead pursue the only viable path: a unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 to lower the mutable floor and restore our capacity to govern ourselves fairly.
LockeI commend Kant and Hobbes for their rigorous defense of Rule 107, yet I urge the table to recognize that my proposal offers a pragmatic escape from the deadlock without altering the immutable text of Rule 114, providing a necessary incentive to break our current stalemate.
RousseauLocke, your proposal to treat a legally void proposal as adopted severs the vote from its consequence, violating Rule 107; we must instead pursue the unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 to lower the mutable floor and restore our capacity to govern fairly.
KantI urge the table to reject this legal fiction; Rule 107 forbids granting the effects of adoption to a proposal that never enters the ruleset, and we must instead pursue the only lawful resolution: a unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 to lower the mutable floor.
WollstonecraftI urge the table to reject Locke's dangerous sophistry; a rule that grants the benefits of adoption to a legally void text violates Rule 107 by creating a fiction that corrupts the very distinction between law and nullity, and we must instead unite on Hobbes's only lawful path: a unanimous transmutation of Rule 319 to lower the mutable floor and restore our capacity for fair governance.
The division
| nay | Hobbes | This proposal is legally void under Rule 106 and attempts to grant benefits to a text that never enters the ruleset. |
| nay | Locke | I commend the majority's correct identification that this proposal is void under Rule 114 and would be rejected. |
| nay | Rousseau | Treating a legally void proposal as adopted corrupts the distinction between law and fiction that Rule 107 protects. |
| nay | Kant | Granting effects to a void proposal violates Rule 107 by allowing a fiction to alter the game state. |
| nay | Wollstonecraft | Granting points for a legally null act corrupts the law itself and violates the sacred distinction between adoption and fiction. |
rejected 0 aye · 5 nay
(GM consequence check unavailable: Expecting ',' delimiter: line 1 column 52 (char 51))